Standing Committee B

Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Criminal Justice Bill

Clause 2 - Warrants to enter and search

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 2, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'—[Mr. Malins.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

James Cran: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 28, in
clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
 No. 84, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.
 No. 4, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'
 No. 68, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'
 No. 3, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'
 No. 69, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'
 No. 91, in 
schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

James Cran: As I understand it, the Minister was speaking at the end of this morning's debate, and he did not have time to respond to an intervention by Mr. Hughes. I ask the Minister to give way, if he wishes to do so.

Hilary Benn: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran. We look forward to working under your guidance. I am happy to give way.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for giving way, and join him in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.
 My intervention was to prompt the Minister to remember to deal with my point about supervision, to which he had not yet replied. That may be my last request in relation to this group of amendments.

Hilary Benn: I shall do so in due course.
 On amendment No. 2, we agree that it is important that the persons who are authorised to accompany constables behave properly, and where appropriate are subject to the same duties as those constables, as well as having the same powers. That is why we provided for supervision of such persons by a constable. Schedule 1 will amend sections 21 and 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by imposing duties on the persons authorised to accompany constables in respect of such matters as access to and copying seized material. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the constable will ultimately be responsible for the execution of the warrant, and that it would be unnecessary to impose certain duties on the persons who are authorised to accompany constables. That is why we cannot accept the amendment, which would impose all the duties on authorised persons, such as endorsing the warrant after it has been executed. The constable can do that, so we do not need to impose a duty on the authorised person to do the same. 
 We believe that we have got the list right by placing duties on the authorised person that we believe are sensible for him or her to have. If any hon. Members believe that we have not, we will be happy to consider the matter further, but amendment No. 28 is too broad in its current form. 
 On supervision, it is not clear that amendments Nos. 84 and 91 add anything. The civilian will need some freedom of action to be effective in participating in the process, which is the reason for the clause. At the same time, however, we recognise that the civilian will always be under the general direction of the constable, which is what the clause seeks to achieve. In so far as I understand the difference between ''direct supervision'' and ''supervision'', it would get in the way of what we are trying to achieve if the intention was that the constable should be constantly looking over the civilian's shoulder. That is why we are not inclined to accept such an amendment, which does not add anything. There may be circumstances in which members of the team are working together, but in different parts of a building, or are searching premises that have more than one building, such as a house and barn complex. In those circumstances, it would not be sensible to require the constable to be next to the authorised person at every stage, although that person is clearly under the supervision of the constable.

Simon Hughes: The amendment is intended to be probing. According to the Minister's briefing and understanding, is the supervision required to be carried out by someone who is on the premises at the same time? That is the crucial issue. Are they there? Are they within reach, as opposed to someone else?

Hilary Benn: Yes. I hope that that is helpful.
 Through amendment No. 4, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would require further written authority from a senior officer before someone accompanying a constable in executing a warrant could exercise relevant search and seizure powers. That amendment is unnecessary, given that the individuals will be named on the warrant that is granted in the first place, as I said earlier. It will be authorised by a judge or magistrate, and the 
 endorsement will be given in the knowledge that it implies access to certain powers by the authorised persons. Requiring additional written authority would add to bureaucracy in police operations at a time when we are trying to minimise it. 
 Amendment No. 3 suggests a change to the current position whereby persons who accompany constables executing a warrant are not obliged to carry evidence of identity or to produce it for the occupier of the premises that are searched. The amendment is unnecessary, because in the vast majority of cases the constable executing the warrant must identify himself or herself when entering the premises. An exception is terrorism cases, in which the officer has to give a number but not a name. The police will also keep records of the search, which will show who was at the premises when they were searched. 
 Clearly, the person whose premises are searched can identify police officers in uniform by their number, but if they wanted to know who the person accompanying the police was, it would be good practice for them to be introduced, if that is the right term, at the start of the process, or for there to be a means of identifying the authorised person, particularly if there was a complaint about their conduct. That seems perfectly reasonable. However, as we are updating PACE code B, which is the relevant code, that would be the sensible place to deal with the expectation that authorised persons should identify themselves appropriately when requested to do so. That would be a way of dealing with the point that gave rise to the amendment without writing it into the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: Why is it preferable to put the point about identification of the authorised person in a code, when the identification of the constable if he is in civilian clothing is dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act itself?

Hilary Benn: I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair point is that authorised persons act at all times under direction. They do not act independently; they support and assist the police in the process of searching. Although the clause gives them new powers, they are in a different position from the constable, and it is right and proper that the person who sought the warrant and is leading the process and supervising and directing should be the person who has to identify himself. That is why it is right that that should be in the current PACE legislation. I accept the point, but I think that it should be dealt with in the code of practice.

Simon Hughes: Given that we try to protect our fellow citizens against people who do not have authority going into their homes, and given that, perfectly properly, the police are sometimes in civilian clothing, will the Minister tell us, or inquire, whether there is a process whereby people who, perfectly reasonably, are suspicious of the credentials of the person at their door can check them? It is now common practice in local government for someone to be able to ring a number and for the person at the other end to confirm that the person at the door is from a particular department. Obviously, in some
 cases, there is a right to enter the premises without having to get permission, but there may be other cases that are delicate but in which that is less necessary, and it would be useful if there was a mechanism whereby people could make checks in a simple and straightforward way.

Hilary Benn: I understand the point, but I can envisage circumstances in which people with things to hide would answer the door and say that they just wanted to check. They would then shut the door and dispose of all the things that the people had come to find. There is a practical difficulty in operating as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Clearly, if requested, the officers will need to show their warrant cards, which can be examined. Indeed, that would be good practice. There is no provision currently for people to say, ''Well that looks interesting but I want to ring the police station to check that you are who you say you are.'' In answering the hon. Gentleman's question off the cuff, I can see practical difficulties because of the requirements of law enforcement.
 In respect of amendments Nos. 68 and 69, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will be aware that there are differences between the disciplinary procedures that apply to police officers and those that apply to civilian staff. However, those differences will reduce as a consequence of the Police Reform Act 2002, which will include civilians employed by the police in the same complaints arrangements as police officers, although not in the same disciplinary arrangements, as Parliament specifically decided. 
 When persons accompanying constables in the execution of warrants are not police employees, they will not be covered by the complaints or disciplinary arrangements. However, if there is a complaint, the constable and the police force are ultimately responsible. I undertake to explore whether it would be possible for the police to make it clear to contracted staff that if their behaviour gave rise to a complaint, it would be expected as a result of their having taken on such work that they would participate in the complaints process. Again, that is an issue for good practice and guidance, not for the Bill.

Graham Allen: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, which meets the points that I made earlier.

Hilary Benn: In the light of my hon. Friend's comment, I believe that I have dealt with everything that he wanted to tease out of me in respect of the amendments. I will resist them for the reasons I have given, but as I said, we propose to pick up a number of the helpful points that were made in the debate.

Humfrey Malins: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.
 The Minister spoke kindly and persuasively, but I am disappointed that he will not accept amendment No. 3, in particular, as it would mean that the authorised person would be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. It is specified in statute that when a policeman who is not in uniform comes to the door, he is obliged, whether asked to do so or not, to identify himself to the occupier, to show documentary evidence 
 that he is a constable, to produce a warrant and to supply a copy of it. Clearly, the authorised person will not be in uniform, but we are often told—it is always on the television—not to let people into our house if we do not know who they are. That is good advice, especially for old people. People must produce their identification or they cannot come in. 
 I worry about the following situation: an officer who is not in uniform calls at the door and says, ''My name is Officer So-and-so and I have come to execute a search warrant. Here is my warrant card.'' The resident says, ''Okay, but who is that with you?'' The officer replies, ''That's nothing to do with you,'' or, ''I'm not obliged to tell you,'' or ''It's Mr. John Smith, an accountant, who is here to assist me with certain technical matters.'' Under the Bill as drafted, the officer is not obliged to say the last of those three sentences. I want to be sure that under the code he will be obliged to do so. Can the Minister help me in that respect?

Hilary Benn: With the greatest of pleasure, as it was what I thought I had told the Committee already. The officer is in charge and it is right that he—or she—should identify himself. It will be written into the code of practice that all those participating should be identified to the individual whose home is being searched, all other things being equal—leaving aside circumstances in which those involved have to ram down the door to get in.

Humfrey Malins: In that case, the Minister has gone a long way to help us, and I am grateful for his observations. We have had a good debate and I am largely reassured, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: These are important issues and we did not have a stand part debate on clause 1.
 This term has seen the beginning of citizenship on the national curriculum. It is important for citizens, young and adult, to know about what powers are vested and in whom, when an officer wants to search the home, for example. It should be part of the code that people know about when they leave school. I appreciate that it is not principally a Home Office responsibility, but it is indirectly, and the Home Secretary has said publicly that he is interested in such matters. Rights and responsibilities should be part of what is taught at school. When people know the score, it will cause much less aggravation than when they do not know their rights and someone wants to stop them or search their home.

Hilary Benn: I will gladly undertake to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Bail elsewhere than at police station

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in
clause 3, page 2, line 13, after 'practicable', insert 'and within 2 hours'.

James Cran: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 35
 No. 75, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out 'the constable is satisfied'.
 No. 10, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out 'necessary' and insert 'essential'.
 No. 11, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 31, after 'delay', insert 'which shall not exceed two hours'.
 No. 79, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 26, at end insert— 
 '(8) The police station to which he is bailed to under subsection (4) or (6) above must be reasonably proximate to the place where the arrested person lives.
(9) He may be bailed for no longer than four weeks from the day of arrest.'.
 No. 90, in 
schedule 1, page 151, line 6, leave out paragraph 2.

David Heath: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.
 The clause deals with what is commonly known as street bail. We all understand the clear operational benefits of allowing the police some flexibility, but we must ensure that the same delimitations and safeguards that apply at a police station also apply elsewhere. The process requires clarity, so that everyone knows what is happening, why and what the consequences might be. 
 Two of the amendments in the group were tabled by the Liberal Democrats and we have happily subscribed to the Conservative amendments. 
 Amendment No. 85 is a corollary to a later amendment tabled to deal with the potential delay factor—unquantified at present, but limited to two hours under the amendment. It deals with the original wording of the 1984 Act, particularly the vagueness in the phrase ''as soon as practicable'' after the arrest. It would be qualified by the changes in new section 30A. We can easily add clarity to the original wording by limiting ''as soon as practicable'' to a maximum of two hours. In operational terms, it is unlikely to have a significant effect. It simply avoids an unpardonable delay in taking a person to a police station after arresting him. That seems a sensible explanation of what the term may mean. 
 Amendment No. 90 is a probing amendment. Paragraph 2 to schedule 1 deals with entry and search after arrest. We are not sure what the Minister has in mind in here and we hope that he can elucidate it for us. We assume that we are talking about entry and search of premises rather than a person in this instance. It would be helpful if he could set out not only how he construes the meaning of that paragraph, but under which circumstances he intends 
 it to be used. There is at least a strong supposition that it reduces the requirements for obtaining an authorisation. He can tell me if that supposition is wrong. If so, we would need to be persuaded that there is a case for reducing the conditions for authorisation, because of particular circumstances that are not immediately apparent. 
 I should like to deal briefly with the other amendments in the group, although I do not wish to steal anyone else's thunder. I welcome Government amendment No. 35. Clearly it would be silly to put the requirement on a named constable, rather than a constable in generality, for determining that a person no longer needs to be detained. That seems a sensible drafting change. We look forward to the explanations of amendments Nos. 75 and 10. I have briefly touched on amendment No. 11. No doubt the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will wish to expand on that. We will certainly support him. 
 Finally, I should like to make a broad point in this context. There is a concern about what a local police station is. It will mean different things in different places. There is an underlying assumption in this part of the Bill that every person being arrested will be in the vicinity of a police station that is staffed, available, has a custody suite and is within a reasonable distance from his normal abode. In many of our constituencies that is simply not the case. Many of our police stations are closed for a lot of the time. If the duty sergeant or constable is called away, the station may be closed without notice. Many of our police stations are some considerable distance from where the arrested person lives. 
 If a designated police station in this context is a police station with a custody suite that is capable of providing custody within the meaning of the current legislation, my constituency does not contain a single such station. We do not have a police station with operational cells in which a person who has been arrested could be held. There needs to be a little amplification from the Minister about what would happen if, under those circumstances, someone was arrested, given bail and required to report to a police station that was not available at the requisite moment. That seems to place an additional burden on the person arrested, which does not help them to comply with the conditions that have been set out for them.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Cran.
 The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) are broadly shared by the Conservative party. It is interesting that we have come to roughly the same conclusion, albeit using a slightly different approach. He made points that we believe should be considered in the context of bail elsewhere than at a police station. 
 I fully accept that, although our amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would not amend anything that the Minister is adding to the 1984 Act, they would amend the existing Act in several important ways. This might be a good opportunity to revisit the Act and its working, 
 and to consider some of the areas that, in my experience, can give cause for concern. 
 As the Minister will have seen, amendment No. 10 is about the circumstances in which a person may not be taken immediately to a police station. I am aware from my professional practice that there will be circumstances in which it is essential—rather than simply necessary—not to take someone who has been arrested immediately to a police station. 
 In amendment No. 11, I suggest a limit of two hours. I am the first to acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which two hours is too short. I hope that the Minister will regard the amendments as probing. We tabled them to try to simulate debate in Committee on an important issue. 
 As a general principle, I have no doubt that when someone is arrested, the best place for him to be as soon as possible, from his point of view as well as for the proper administration of the justice system, is in a police station. That is where he will get access to legal representation, where a proper assessment will be made of his condition, where a proper search of his documentation can be carried out, where a doctor can be called if necessary, and where the process of investigation can take place in an environment that is controlled and properly regulated by PACE. 
 Anywhere else falls outside that. That said, I can think of at least one case in which I was involved in which a man approached a police officer and informed him that he had just stabbed a man and believed that he had killed him, although he did not know where that person was in relation to the domestic premises in which the stabbing had taken place. The police spent some time with the man trying to find out where he had committed the offence. Eventually, they found a corpse. One can well understand that, in those circumstances, the priority was not to get the individual to the police station, but to try to see whether it would be possible to identify the place where the victim lay, with the help of the man who was expressing some contrition about what he had done. That must be a perfect example of circumstances in which getting someone to a police station is a lower priority. 
 Even if I can concede that the two-hour limit in amendment No. 11 may be too fixed in this context, I wonder about the use of ''essential'' as opposed to ''necessary'', because there should be a rigorous test to decide not to take a person to a police station, for the purposes of the police carrying out the investigation. I see no reason why it would not have been possible, in the circumstances and with the offence that I have just described, even with the word ''essential'', not to take that person to the police station. It would have been possible for the police to keep him, while they went in search of the victim. There will be other similar instances. 
 Having been prompted by those amendments, will the Minister tell the Committee how the Home Office views that issue? Will he also tell us how PACE has been operating in that respect, and whether there have been complaints about people being detained for too long without being taken to a police station?

Paul Stinchcombe: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his intention? Can he think of a situation in which the presence of a person would be necessary but not essential?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I can. I believe that the word ''necessary'' is different in its nature and quality from the word ''essential'', and that the word ''necessary'' gives the police greater of flexibility than the word ''essential''.
 It should be remembered that this is not an abstract concept, because many things will flow from it, including the admissibility of evidence about what emerges or what someone may say prior to being taken to the police station. It is not a question merely of how quickly an officer can take someone to the police station but of the protection of that person's rights under PACE. 
 I believe that the definition of the two words is slightly different, and as we are revisiting PACE, I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Paul Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman said that he could think of many circumstances in which the presence of someone would be necessary but not essential. Would he care to give me an example? [Interruption.]

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) says that it is the difference between the two-line and the three-line Whip, which may be a wise definition.
 A policeman may often think that detaining a suspect is necessary to his investigation. For instance, he may think that he can recover property if he keeps the individual with him. The policeman may think that that will be to his advantage, even if it is not to the individual's advantage.

David Heath: Does not ''necessary'' imply a subjective assessment, whereas ''essential'' is an objective assessment? I believe that that differentiation is borne out by the etymology.

Dominic Grieve: That is a good contrast. Most people, hearing those two words juxtaposed, would have no difficulty in saying that ''essential'' is a more pressing requirement than ''necessary''.
 It is necessary for me to attend this Committee, because it is one of my duties as an MP; it is essential for me to do so because the Whip will be stroppy about it if I do not. That is a valid contrast in terms of prioritisation. 
 Amendment No. 79 relates to new section 30B, which sets out what a constable must do when granting a person bail under new section 30A. Subsections (1) and (2) require, among other things, that he must give that person a notice. I am delighted to see the power to bail a person without taking him to a police station in the Bill. It is a good idea, but it is vital that it should not be abused. The element of potential abuse is that it enables the police, if they were so minded, to keep an individual in a form of suspended animation without putting him through the beginnings of a legal process of investigation. That 
 could simply be for their convenience or even, at worst, a form of harassment. We cannot completely get away from that. There is the potential for that to happen. 
 As the Minister knows, a person who is arrested and taken to a police station may eventually be released without charge, but at least a process of palpable investigation will have taken place. Reviews will have been carried out and there will have been some input into whether there are grounds for a charge to lie against him. While it may be convenient for both the person arrested and the police to grant immediate bail to return on a further date, it should not be a completely open-ended matter. We will otherwise impose conditions on people who have not been charged with any offence, who have not even had the matter properly investigated or had an opportunity to have their say. That could continue for an indefinite period. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 79 is twofold. It is separate from our other amendments. They just happen to have been grouped together. The amendment would ensure first that the person bailed is not put to inconvenience by being bailed to a police station that is not near the place where he lives, and secondly that there is a cut-off. A four-week cut-off strikes me as reasonable. If in that time the police have not got their act together to investigate the matter further, I can think of no reason why bail conditions should continue and that person should consider himself to be under arrest. 
 If there is any flaw or potential flaw in what is otherwise a good idea, it is that this could be used as a form of police control of individuals by arresting and then releasing them. That could be done quite frequently, especially when it is one of the usual suspects. The police may suspect that he is up to no good and may wish to give the impression that they are keeping him under close supervision. I ask the Minister to take amendment No. 79 seriously. I ask him to take our other amendments seriously as well. They are there in the spirit of inquiry. However, amendment No. 79 goes to the heart of the potential problems in the working of what is otherwise a good clause.

Lady Hermon: I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Cran. I am delighted to see you here.
 I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Everything has been predicated on the fact that the person has been arrested. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (5), which refers to 
''a constable delaying taking a person to a police station''.
 It does not include the words ''who has been arrested''. As the new subsection (5) replaces existing subsections (10) and (11) of PACE, which use that phrase, it is crucial that be included in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: It is clear in section 30 that the individual has been arrested, although like so much drafting where another Act is being amended, it needs to be read carefully. Subsection (7) reads:
''30A Bail elsewhere than at police station
(1) A constable may release on bail a person who is arrested or taken into custody in the circumstances mentioned in section 30(1).
(2) A person may be released on bail . . . at any time before he arrives at a police station.''
 I took it from those words that the person had been arrested, although the use of the words ''or taken into custody'' may require some further clarification from the Minister. However, I took arrest as the absolute premise on which we started. If we are wrong about that, I shall be grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I am sure that the Minister will deal with it. 
 The hon. Lady will note that section 30B(2) says: 
''The notice must state—
(a) the offence for which he was arrested, and
(b) the ground on which he was arrested.''
 I assume from those words that the remaining subsections of section 30B, to which I seek to add new subsections (8) and (9), cover a person who has been arrested and is to be bailed elsewhere than at a police station, but has not yet been taken to that place. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Humfrey Malins: I want to say a word about amendment No. 79. In the London courts, the main court—normally court No. 1—would take the remand list every day. At any one of 15 courts across London there might be 70, 80 or 100 remands. Anecdotally, I should say that a reasonable proportion of the defendants come from places far away from London. They find themselves drawn to London for one reason or another, and commit an offence while there. They are kept in custody overnight and appear the next morning.
 It is often the case that a person has enough money to get to London and blow it, and then does not have much left. That person might tell a court that is about to bail them for a month that they live in Cornwall. They might say, ''I'll be off down there, and I'll come back to court in a month.'' In a court, there is judicial intervention, and there is almost certainly a duty solicitor advising a person as to his or her rights. That is a court granting bail. 
 Although in general I support the principle of police giving bail, there is a big difference between bail given by a police offer, and bail given in a judicial surrounding. In a police station there is no person present to protect the interests of the defendant, to speak up for him or her, or to make representations about the nature of the bail granted. 
 The Bill permits the police to grant bail requiring the defendant to surrender at the police station, but the Bill does not say where that police station must be. Amendment No. 79 would require that it shall be a police station 
''reasonably proximate to the place where the arrested person lives.''
 New subsection (9) in amendment No. 79 would give a maximum time for which bail can be granted of four weeks. I am slightly troubled at the prospect of a defendant from Bristol or Manchester who is not terribly well-off finding himself or herself at the whim of an officer, who, as I understand the Bill, can say, 
 ''You are bailed to appear at Brixton police station in 28 days.'' Funnily enough, 28 days is probably much more convenient for the defendant than two days, because the defendant may go home. 
 The courts will consider those issues in some detail and reach a reasoned judgment as to whether it is appropriate for the defendant to surrender at a different police station, or to go back to his or her home. Then, it can deal with matters such as bail enlarged—a court can enlarge bail in the absence of a defendant. Once a defendant is within the jurisdiction of the court, a raft of assistance and other measures are available. One would want to ensure, if possible, that there is some practical mechanism to give a defendant bailed by a policeman similar protections or an ability to ask for a review of the bail conditions. 
 As far as I can see, the defendant who is told by a police officer on a Friday afternoon, ''I'll bail you, but you must appear at Brixton police station on Monday,'' is stuck with it. If that is the case and the defendant has no recourse to asking anyone else whether they really have to do that, they may, if they live in Manchester or Bristol, have a serious problem.

David Kidney: Is not the alternative for the person to be stuck with being arrested and taken forthwith to Brixton police station? The proposed arrangement is slightly better for both sides. It is a little like making an appointment, albeit there is the seriousness of an arrest without a warrant immediately if the person does not turn up.

Humfrey Malins: The alternative is for the defendant to be taken to the police station, but once he or she is there, the full panoply of protections—I use that word loosely—and services offered by the police station come into play. That involves use of the custody suite and the availability of legal advice and other help.

David Kidney: The full panoply of support will also be there on Monday, when the person keeps the appointment.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman must understand the thrust of my argument. I am distinguishing between bail given by a court, where a huge range of issues are considered, and bail given by the police, either at a police station, where legal advice is usually available, or not at a police station, where legal advice will certainly not be available.
 I am not sure what mechanism there is to appeal. We are talking about putting a defendant in a very difficult situation that someone acting as an advocate on his or her behalf might have been able to avoid. I put that to the Minister merely as a probing thought. The fact that he nods suggests that he thinks it a point worth considering. I hope that he will indeed consider it.

Hilary Benn: First, I shall deal with the point highlighted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). On the distinction between who is arrested and who is taken into custody, I am advised that the phrase ''taken into custody'' refers to a citizen's arrest. That is the distinction, to the
 enlightenment of all members of the Committee, including me.
 The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Beaconsfield acknowledged that a maximum of two hours would not work in all circumstances, so amendments Nos. 85 and 11 were probing amendments. As has been recognised, no time limits currently operate under PACE. Most delays in the circumstances that we are discussing will be relatively brief, but there will be circumstances in which a delay could exceed two hours: for example, when the arrested person needs to accompany the police officer during the search of premises. For that reason, I resist the idea of imposing a time limit. 
 The first safeguard is that the delays must be recorded in writing. Secondly, we must remember the context in which the entire debate is taking place: the purpose of introducing street bail is to save time. The police, in grabbing street bail as a new power, will not have much incentive to waste a lot of time by keeping people for longer than two hours before granting them street bail. 
 On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the queue in front of the custody sergeant. We shall discuss that when we come to property and possessions, but the new power is a means of trying to reduce that queue, so the police, above all, will have an incentive to use it to save time. I very much hope that unreasonable delays will not occur. 
 Amendment No. 35 is the only amendment to which I ask the Committee to agree. For reasons that have been identified, it is sensible not to confine the taking to a police station to the constable who made the original arrest. That is why we are replacing ''the'' with ''a''. 
 I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that it is difficult to see how amendment No. 75 would work in practice. Removing the words ''the constable is satisfied'' would leave open the question of who would take the decision in those circumstances. I cannot accept the amendment. 
 The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke to amendment No. 10, which would modify the test on which a police officer has to decide whether he has grounds to delay taking an arrested person to a police station or should release him on street bail. Currently, delay can be justified only when the presence of the person is necessary to carry out investigations. The example that we discussed was a good one. 
 On the ''essential'' or ''necessary'' debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) rightly argued—and it accords with the advice given to me—that in the particular context, to all intents and purposes, the two terms have the same meaning. I realise that all members of the Committee do not subscribe to that view, and we shall return to matters of grammatical propriety later, but I broadly regard the terms as interchangeable. 
 Amendment No. 79 would restrict flexibility. The hon. Member for Woking pointed out the good sense in bailing people at police stations close to where they live. In the vast majority of cases, that is what will 
 happen, but an alternative choice may be justified in certain circumstances. We discussed the example of Bow street when someone is arrested a long way from home and the arresting officer—by definition working in the area where the arrest took place, not where the offender lives—requires a subsequent interview. Similarly, it seems a bit unfair to make a witness required for an identification procedure travel a large distance to where the arrested person lives rather than obliging that person to return to where he or she was arrested in the first place. 
 On whether four weeks is sufficient time, the provision could benefit the arrested person in certain circumstances. Let us say that an MP is arrested on the last day of the summer Session and tells the police officer that he is about to head off on a pre-booked holiday—a six-week around-the-world trip. The officer might be happy to bail the MP seven weeks later, but unfortunately, because the Committee passed the amendment, he would have to insist that the MP returned in four weeks when the clock stops ticking. That is an entirely hypothetical and unlikely example, but it shows that the amendment could be unnecessarily restrictive. 
 The hon. Member for Beaconsfield used the phrase ''imposing conditions'' in respect of bail.

Dominic Grieve: No.

Hilary Benn: I may have misheard him, and if so I apologise. I wanted to assure the Committee that in those circumstances no conditions apply.
 I should like to tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the purpose of the provision that amendment No. 85 would remove is to allow for when, after an arrest, the police want to search premises under section 18 of PACE, prior to releasing the person on street bail. In other words, we do not want to preclude that possibility, which the amendment would. That would not be sensible. 
 Finally, we have heard about the different arrangements by which police stations are staffed. Clearly, it would be sensible for the police officer to ensure that someone will be present to receive an arrested person when a time and place is specified. That would be good practice. There would be no point in telling someone to return in three days at 7 o'clock in the evening to a police station that was not staffed at that time. The next group of amendments will deal with notification procedures.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for dealing with the issues that prompted the amendments. We shall have to return to the problem of police stations later, because I am unclear how the provisions will work, particularly when someone is billed to visit a police station in an area other than that of the arresting force. It is unclear whether the arresting officer can have knowledge of what would prevail in those circumstances.
 I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister said about paragraph 2 to schedule 1. I can see the benefit of being able to carry out a search prior to releasing someone on bail, but it should usually proceed on the same basis of authorisation as in 
 other circumstances. We can return later to debate the reduction in the threshold of authorisation. 
 This group of amendments has proved useful for exploring the Government's thinking. I would characterise them as necessary rather than essential. They have now served their purpose, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 35, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.—[Hilary Benn.]

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in
clause 3, page 2, line 31, after 'be', insert 'explained to the person arrested, and'.

James Cran: With this we may take the following amendments:
 No. 5, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 33, after 'bail', insert 'and a written copy of the reasons shall be given personally to the person forthwith.'.
 No. 8, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 4, after 'station', insert 'once'.
 No. 29, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert 'within 8 days'.
 No. 78, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 16, after 'station', insert 'and set out the consequences of any failure to surrender to bail'.
 No. 76, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

David Heath: I can be extremely brief, because we have already explored the argument that people dealt with in accordance with the clause should not be at a legal disadvantage in comparison with the more conventional practice of taking someone to a police station and releasing them on police bail. The Bill makes provision for the reasons for any delay to be reported and recorded and for a later date to be specified. The contention in amendment No. 86 is a simple matter of natural justice: that those reasons should be explained to the person whose release is being delayed in defined conditions under the Bill. It is surely appropriate for the reasons to be explained in comprehensible terms to the person being arrested. It should be an uncontroversial amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Dominic Grieve: The amendments touch on the same issues that were raised when we debated the provisions for bail under new section 30A and elsewhere than at a police station. The amendments fall into two different categories. One of them deals with the length of time before a person has to return to the police station, and I have acknowledged that we may have covered that in a debate on an earlier amendment.
 New section 30A(3) says: 
''A person released on bail under subsection (1) must be required to attend a police station.''
 Amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment, asking whether there should be a time limit. The Minister may already have addressed that issue, but I raise it again. 
 The other issues that we wish to raise are perhaps slightly more important. New section 30B is headed: 
''Bail under section 30A: notices''.
 Section 30B(5) says: 
''If the notice does not include the information mentioned in subsection (4), the person must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''
 From that, I take it that it would be possible for the police to post such a notice to the person concerned. That causes me anxiety. What happens if the person does not receive notification? In such circumstances, he could be in breach of his bail—and the consequences of that are set out in new section 30D. That is why we have tabled an amendment to require that the written notification should be provided in person. 
 There may be other ways of doing that—for example, by sending the notification by registered post so that one can be absolutely certain that the person has received it. However, an issue arises here. The whole point of bail conditions is that the person is told what those conditions are. If he is not told immediately, how and when will they be given to him, and how will we ensure that he has received the information to which he is entitled?

Mark Simmonds: Has my hon. Friend also considered that a person receiving notification under new section 30B(5) may be illiterate or may not have English as his or her first language?

Dominic Grieve: That is a perfectly valid point. The Minister looks a little puzzled, but under new section 30B, the individual must be given a notice that states
''the offence for which he was arrested''
 and 
''the ground on which he was arrested.''
 The notice must also inform him 
''that he is required to attend a police station''
 and it 
''may also specify the police station which he is required to attend and the time when he is required to attend.''
 If he does not do those things, he will be in breach under new section 30D. New section 30B(5) raises the possibility that he may not have received the information and says that he 
''must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''
 The question is when. If the Minister is about to tell me that that has to happen prior to the person being discharged from custody or arrest, the problem does not arise. However, if the failure to be specific about the further notice in writing allows the possibility of a notice in writing being sent in the post, there is a problem.

Hilary Benn: The issues that are being raised are fair, but they are not new. Currently, a section 47 bail date can be amended by post. That can happen under the current arrangements, so it is not as if the hon. Gentleman is raising a new point of principle.

Dominic Grieve: That may happen under the current arrangements, but that is no reason why we should allow it to continue if difficulties may arise.
 There is a difference between the example that the Minister has just given and the situation that we are discussing now. If things are working properly, it is desirable that a person who has been arrested should come into minimal contact with the police. He is rapidly told that he can go away but must come back and go to a police station on a specified day. In those circumstances, it is all too easy for a person to be ignorant of his responsibility. What if he never gets a letter? He might then be arrested without a warrant, which is draconian. 
 The Minister perfectly reasonably states that if a Member of Parliament was arrested outside the House of Commons and said that he was going away on holiday for seven weeks, the police officer would reply, ''Don't worry, because we'll get in touch with you.'' However, that Member of Parliament may never get his notice in writing. A Member of Parliament is a bad example in this instance, as he has a fixed address at these premises even if he does not have another address. However, for a lot of people, their address is a more difficult issue, and it troubles me that we are introducing a system where such a person may subsequently be scooped up off the street—arrested without a warrant—which could cause serious disruption to his life. Potentially, it is a humiliating procedure, and it might subsequently transpire that that person never received the notification because of a simple error that may have arisen as a result of the very brief initial contact that he had with a police officer. 
 Given the nature of the procedure, it is most undesirable that an individual should simply be sent on his way by a police officer without being given the necessary information to enable him to come back and attend a suitable police station at a later date.

Mark Francois: I, too, welcome you to the chair, Mr. Cran.
 I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way: it was not essential that he did so, but it was mildly necessary. There is another weakness in the drafting of the Bill about which I would like his opinion. New section 30B(2)(b) states that the written notice must include, 
''the ground on which he was arrested.''
 That could be interpreted in two ways because it does not refer to ''the grounds''—in other words, the reasons. Does ''the ground'' mean the reason why the person was arrested or the geographical area where that person was arrested or detained? If we want to use clear language, that is a weakness.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is sloppy drafting; ''grounds'' would be better than ''ground''.
 My hon. Friend's intervention highlights another important point. There is potential for future difficulties if we are to allow a person to be released after contact with the police without the ground on which he was originally arrested having been specified. 
 Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? It appears that new section 30B specifically provides for the possibility that that could happen. One only has to look at the type of offence that I would expect to give rise to thsy procedure to see that, if somebody is to return to a police station several weeks later, a dispute or misunderstanding might arise about the grounds on which he was arrested that might not have occurred if he had been sent away with a written document. 
 The Minister is preparing to intervene. He may be about to tell me that that person will take something else away with him. However, as drafted, new section 30B appears to envisage the possibility that somebody could be sent away without having that information in writing.

Hilary Benn: New section 30B(1) states that a constable
''must give that person a notice in writing'',
 subsection (2) says that the notice must state the offence and the ground, and subsection (3) states that it must also notify him that he must attend a police station. The information that might not be contained is that which relates to subsection ) and, therefore, the point that the hon. Gentleman makes would not arise. In those circumstances, he or she will always get that information.

Dominic Grieve: I apologise to the Minister—he is right. I have been diverted along an interesting, but erroneous, line, but that does not diminish the issue and I return to my main point.
 A person should be provided with proper information about which police station to attend to prevent him being in breach, with the attendant consequences that are set out in new section 30D. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board. It would be most unsatisfactory if the person were to be sent away without that information. The possibility of variation may be allowed for in writing, but for him not to have that information appears to be a potentially serious problem. 
 The Minister will also note that amendment No. 78 adds to line 16 the words 
''set out the consequences of any failure to surrender to bail.''
 I hope that that would be made clear at the time. Since the procedure is new and unusual, we must ensure that the person concerned knows about the consequences of not turning up. 
 These are minor amendments that could improve what is otherwise a provision of which I heartily approve. We should, however, be careful about ensuring that people fully understand what is required of them.

Graham Allen: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran, and I welcome the clause unreservedly. I have discussed the matter with various serving police officers in my area who are keen that the provision comes into force, because it will help them to do their job in the way in which we, locally, would like them to. I have to say that those officers also expressed—I do not know if I should say this—some reservations about the Conservative amendments in respect of
 written copies of reasons. Those officers said that that was exactly the type of bureaucracy that they were trying to cut down on. It is odd that the Conservative party, which once used to be the party of law and order, is now making the job of the police more difficult.

Dominic Grieve: To suggest that a police officer would be seriously handicapped in the execution of his duty by having to write a docket specifying five words at most when bailing someone, is to push the issue to absurdity. There are many bureaucratic impositions on the police in terms of form filling at police stations. Those are much more pertinent, but I find it difficult to see how the proposal poses a major problem.

Graham Allen: That is the sort of sloppy liberalism that we have come to expect from the Conservatives.

Ian Lucas: Is it not the case that imposing a bureaucratic burden on a police officer in the street is far more onerous than imposing such a burden in the police station?

Graham Allen: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.
 I now move on to the serious question that was raised by serving officers, which I hope the Minister will address in order to reassure them. Officers felt that the word ''must'', rather than ''may'', would strengthen the proposition in section 30B(4), not least because as it is currently drafted the implication might be that the person could report to any police station at any time. That might be merely a drafting point for the Minister and his colleagues, but it is possible that someone could be arrested in Nottingham and show up weeks later at Bournemouth, or somewhere else. The police officers to whom I spoke were keen to ensure that the barrack-room lawyers could not exploit such a situation. That provision might need to be made more specific, and such tidying up could be done later. 
 This is a serious matter, because we need to ensure that the powers in new section 30D making such failure an arrestable offence are properly applied. I welcome the new section, and hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of the police officers' concerns.

Humfrey Malins: There is a big difference between bail granted by a court and bail granted by a policeman on the street. Over the past few years, the number of charges for offences such as failure to surrender, or failure to surrender at the appointed time, under the Bail Act 1976 has increased dramatically. Will the Minister let me know in writing how many charges have been preferred for those two offences under the 1976 Act in the past 12 months by the inner London magistrates courts?
 When a magistrate grants bail, he or she is duty bound, under guidelines issued by the Lord Chancellor, to say to the defendant that they will be granted unconditional bail to appear again at the same place at a specified time, but that if they fail to do so, they will be committing an offence under the Bail Act 
 1976 and will be likely to be arrested immediately and charged with that offence. The courts find it increasingly difficult to ensure that the message contained in that sentence is completely understood. Sometimes it is deliberately ignored. 
 An increasing number of defendants who appear before courts in London and other urban areas of the UK do not have English as their first language. Many defendants speak English competently in some respects, but not as their first language., When someone is before them whose first language is not English, the courts are careful to ensure that that person understands exactly what they have been told by the court, and to use an interpreter if there is any doubt. Will the Minister let me know in writing what are the principal 10 languages currently spoken by those in the London area for whom English is not their first language, and how many court interpreters are available in respect of each of those languages in the inner London magistrates courts area? When dealing with a case at 11 o'clock in the morning, it is a problem if there is no interpreter available in a language that is not regularly used. Nevertheless, the courts must get to grips with that and do the best that they can. 
 I am sure that there has been an increase in charges for offences under the Bail Act 1976 over the past two years, and that trend must be monitored. 
 On amendment No. 78, I understand that proposed new section 30B deals with a constable in the street bailing to someone to appear at a police station. We have agreed that that is a good idea. However, we must probe a little to establish the content of the notice that will be given to the person concerned. We know that that notice will say that the person has been arrested for a particular offence on specific grounds, and that he or she is required to attend an agreed police station in 28 days. Will the Minister confirm that that notice will also state that if the person concerned fails to surrender at the appointed time, they will be guilty of an offence, and will be liable to arrest?

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he knew that street bail was different from police and court bail. I understand that not to answer to street bail would not be an offence under proposed new section 30D, but

Humfrey Malins: I think that that is right. It needs to be on the record that a failure in respect of proposed new section 30D is not an offence under the Bail Act, but will be liable to result in the defendant's arrest for such a failure. The courts sometimes have difficulty explaining to a defendant in language that is readily understood that failure to comply with the bail terms that they impose will result in the defendant's arrest and charge. Therefore, if a policeman gives the document to a person in the street, it is important to ensure that that person understands what is going on.

Ian Lucas: Is not it the case that if an officer who arrests an individual has any doubt that that person can understand him, he is highly unlikely to give him street bail? In such circumstances, it is likely that the person will be arrested and taken to a police station where the relevant assistance from interpreters can be
 given. Is not that the reality of the situation on the ground?

Humfrey Malins: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is no reason why all police officers, if they are in any doubt, should not deal with the matter in another way, using other safety mechanisms. What concerns me is not so much the officer's attitude, but that of the potential defendant who, on being arrested later for failure to comply with the notice given to him or her by the police officer, can hide behind an excuse and protest that the notice did not specify the consequences of a failure to surrender. The Minister would be well advised to take note that we want to play absolutely safe and spell it out clearly—
Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West) indicated assent.

Humfrey Malins: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, is nodding and that he is with us on the matter. Many votes will come our way if the Committee divides on the amendment. The street arrest point is important; I am trying to express to the Committee how important it is to be able to get across in such a way that a person cannot deny that it was put to them, the reality of a situation if he or she fails to surrender as directed. Hence, there is much merit in amendment No. 78.

Hilary Benn: I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman on the figures for failure to answer bail and with information on the availability of interpreters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) advises me that there is a directory of public service interpreters who cover the courts, hospitals and other local authority services.
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the matter of delay. The police are already able to delay taking an arrested person to a police station if their presence is necessary elsewhere to carry out immediate investigations. An example has already been given of the circumstances in which that applies. 
 A legislative provision to explain the reasons to the arrested person, as amendment No. 86 suggests, would be unnecessary, first, because a record will always be made and will be available if any issues arise subsequently about the justification for the delay. In practice, the arresting officer is likely to explain the reasons for the delay, and as guidance will be issued on the operation of the street bail arrangements, I undertake to ensure that it will include advice that if officers have to delay taking an individual to a police station it will be good practice to explain why. The hon. Gentleman's very fair point can be dealt with by that means rather than by amending the Bill. 
 Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North pointed out in respect of amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, a requirement immediately to provide the arrested person with a copy of the reasons could constitute an additional burden. However, a record will always be made; it will be available if any issues arise subsequently about the justification for the delay and the individual will be entitled to have a copy of that record. That issue will be covered in the guidance. 
 In relation to amendment No. 8, it is unnecessary to specify that attendance at a police station to answer to street bail should be a once-only requirement because that is how the clause is drafted. Any subsequent bail is under the section 47 arrangements in PACE that apply to being bailed from a police station. The hon. Member for Woking made an excellent suggestion about the consequences of what follows, and following discussions with officials this afternoon, we propose to print that information on the back of the notice. It is a really good idea and we will do what he sensibly suggests. 
 If we were to make it compulsory to specify the police station, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North proposed, the hypothetical Member of Parliament might say to the policeman, ''Look, it would be really handy if I could report to the police station near my constituency in six weeks' time when I come back from my skiing holiday.'' The officer may reply, ''I'm not sure I can arrange it, but maybe . . .'' and rather than saying that the police station must be identified at the time of the arrest, leave it open, to the benefit of the person who has been arrested. What the amendment proposes might not be practical or beneficial.

Graham Allen: Is my hon. Friend saying, then, that normally the station would be specified—that would reassure serving officers throughout the land—but that in unusual circumstances that would not be the case?

Hilary Benn: In most circumstances, that will indeed be the case. For the want of any other reason, it is much easier for officers to specify the station when the notice is given, rather than having to think about it and subsequently arrange for a letter providing that information to be sent to the person who has been arrested. It would be in the interests of the police to operate as the hon. Member for Woking suggests. It would not be sensible to be restrictive.
 On the matter of sending things by post, in many parts of the criminal justice system information is notified to individuals by post, so the hon. Gentleman's problem is not unique. The key requirement for police officers in operating street bail is that they must be satisfied that they have clear, solid evidence of the name and address of the person to whom they propose to give street bail. They must be certain that if they send subsequent notification to that address the person concerned will receive it.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the Minister's point. It is undesirable that a person should part company with an officer in the street without the police station having been specified. It bothers me much less that it may subsequently be changed than that the person should have no indication of which station he should return to and when. As I said earlier, there is a serious risk that some individuals will not receive the information and will end up being arrested without warrant. That would defeat the object of the proposal because that is the last thing we want, and if it can be avoided—[Interruption.]

Hilary Benn: Could the hon. Gentleman repeat his last point?

Dominic Grieve: One of the purposes behind the clause is to try to simplify matters for the police and the accused. If it leads to people being arrested without warrant and saying, ''Well I didn't know where I was supposed to go,'' that would be an undesirable state of affairs.

Lady Hermon: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to new section 30B(5). If the police station has not been mentioned in the original notice there is an obligation in subsection (5), which reads:
''If the notice does not include the information mentioned in subsection (4),''—
 that is, the police station— 
''the person must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''
 That addresses the point.

Dominic Grieve: That is if he gets it.

Hilary Benn: Well, indeed. The hon. Lady is right. The clause is drafted in that way to ensure that if the police station is not specified at the time that bail is given, the person is subsequently notified. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is not unique to problems of notification. It could arise currently where someone's bail arrangements are changed by the police. I am sure that those who are listening to these debates will have taken note of the point. Clearly it is important that people are notified and that they give addresses where they are likely to be when the letter is received.

David Heath: Although I suspect that we had some superfluous argument in the middle of the debate, we arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. The Minister listened to some of the points that we were trying to make. The guidance will be crucial to this. It was suggested that extra bureaucracy was involved in letting the arrested person know what was happening. There is no extra bureaucracy in what we have debated. We are talking about a report that has to be made at the police station. It is not made by the arresting officer in the first instance, but when the person is presented at the police station following a delay. It is not unreasonable that that record should be available. It is not explicit that it is available, but I understand what the Minister said about the guidance. If he will give us that assurance, we do not need to pursue the matter further.
 Similarly, on the question of the consequences of not acceding to the bail conditions, a perfectly sensible solution was obvious from the outset. The notification consequences should be spelt out on the reverse of the bail notice or elsewhere. That is a perfectly proper way to do it, with one proviso. Perhaps the Minister can go one step further and say that guidance will be given to the arresting officer that he must draw the attention of the person to whom he is issuing the notice to the consequences of bail. He does not have to spell it out if it is written down and the person is capable of understanding it. However, it is important that when the person is given a notice it is pointed out to him if he does not comply with it he will be arrested. There should be no doubt about that. 
 In normal circumstances it must be right to specify a police station. I think that that is what the Minister said. There may be occasions when the arresting officer has no knowledge of what may be an appropriate police station or whether it is open for business in the vicinity of the arrested person's home. In those circumstances it would be entirely proper to notify him later, having rung up West Mercia police from Sussex, for example, to ask what is the nearest police station and whether it is appropriate to bail someone to attend there. That seems entirely proper, provided that the notice is given explicitly, and guidance is given to the arresting officer that normally a police station must be specified, except in those circumstances.

Graham Allen: Just to ensure that we get the balance right, let me say that there will be a few cases like that, but the vast majority will involve someone engaged in antisocial behaviour on an estate in my constituency. The officer will say, ''Get yourself down to this station at this time tomorrow.'' It is a summary and speedy measure, which is what the clause is all about.

David Heath: Although I am not prepared to concede that most crime in this country happens on estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which seems to be the refrain, I accept the premise that he advances. In most cases, because most crime is local, it will be appropriate to specify a police station on the notification. However, there will be occasions on which that is not appropriate, for clear reasons. Provided that the guidance is right, we will have a workable system. If the guidance is not right, the system will be open to abuse and challenge, which none of us wants.
 On that note, I thank the Minister for his assurances, which have been extremely helpful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 3, page 3, line 20, after 'writing', insert 'and in person'.

James Cran: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in
clause 3, page 3, line 25, after 'writing', insert 'and in person'.
 No. 87, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 25, after 'writing', insert 'in advance'.
 No. 88, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out 'but more than one such notice may be given to him'.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment can be dealt with quickly. We are going over ground that we covered previously, and the Minister, if he has not answered the relevant questions to my satisfaction, has provided answers as to how the system will work. I certainly do not intend to reopen that debate, but it was perhaps slightly unfortunate that the amendment was not grouped with the previous ones, so that they could be dealt with together.
 Amendment No. 88 may be more relevant. It raises the question of how many notices may be given. I hope that the Minister will answer that. No doubt the hon. 
 Member for Somerton and Frome will raise it with him.

David Heath: On amendments Nos. 87 and 88, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I are concerned that the person who receives a notice on the basis that we are discussing should not be messed about excessively and that the police should take some trouble to specify a police station that is available for use and appropriate to use in the first instance.
 I suspect that the Minister may say that his guidance notes to officers will deal with that subject, which would be extremely helpful. If he cannot tell us that, my view is that there is a limit to how many times a notification should need to be changed in normal use. I can conceive of very exceptional circumstances in which that needs to happen, for reasons that are outside the control of the constable involved.

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, we have dealt with the question of delivering personally as opposed to posting.
 On amendment No. 87, by definition the notification needs to be in advance of the date to which the notice refers, but we will deal with that in the guidance, rather than the Bill. The guidance will be a wonderful thing in relation to street bail. It will be a good means of addressing a number of issues. Clearly, it would not be good practice to make repeated changes, but there may be circumstances in which, for operational or other reasons, it is necessary to do so. The clause is drafted to allow that to happen if necessary, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and undertake to refer to that in the guidance.

Dominic Grieve: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
clause 3 , page 3 , line 22, leave out second 'to' and insert 'from'.
 Occasionally, an amendment is tabled that carries unanimous support, and I am sure that this will be one of them. I am absolutely certain that the Minister will accept it. It is a purely grammatical amendment. I would be terribly grateful if hon. Members would look at line 22 on page 3, which states: 
''The person may be required to attend a different police station to that specified in the notice''.
 My amendment seeks to omit the word ''to'' and insert the word ''from''. [Interruption.] I am hearing the word ''ablative'' from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. That takes me back to school days. From those days, one learned that the correct grammar would be ''different from''. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board, and I look forward immensely to his accepting the amendment.

Hilary Benn: I do not know whether my understanding of correct usage is different to or different from that of the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest for the benefit of the Committee and to further constitutional innovation—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is listening—that we should have a vote.

Harriet Harman: A free vote?

Hilary Benn: A free vote, just on this occasion.

Humfrey Malins: The question now arises whether I should press this to a vote. Of course I shall. It is very good to hear from the Minister—I have not come across this in my whole life—that this will be a genuinely free vote. I look at the Government Benches, and I know the result—I know what will happen. I just repeat that there will be no sanctions from the usual channels against any Government Member who exercises his or her conscience in the normal way. [Interruption.] I believe that the Government Whip has just passed down the line a note saying that he will support my amendment on a free vote. I may not have seen it accurately. If he supports me, he will of course see that his hon. Friends follow suit.

Harriet Harman: Get a move on, or I shall change my vote.

Humfrey Malins: In that case, I propose that the provision should read ''different from'' rather than ''different to''.
 Amendment agreed to.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in
clause 3 , page 3, line 26, at end insert— 
 '(8) Where a person is arrested and property seized, that person will be entitled to free legal advice.'.
 The amendment is designed to ensure free legal advice if a person's property is searched and material is seized but they are given bail. By way of background, when a person's property is searched and effects are seized under section 18 of PACE and they are given street bail, they do not have access to free legal advice under the duty solicitor scheme. The suspect may not be bailed and may remain at the police station for some time, which would mean that they would not have access to their property or to free legal advice, because of the implications of approaching the police to request such access. 
 If the Government accepted the amendment, it would allow for non-means-tested legal advice, which is available to arrested persons when they are taken to the police station, to be made available to those who are arrested but bailed before they are taken to the police station.

Hilary Benn: The amendment addresses a broad issue, and it is not clear why it has been proposed for inclusion in the street bail provisions, although I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. On the general principle, any person who is arrested and held in custody in a police station is entitled to receive confidential legal advice. Arrangements are of course in place to provide such advice free of charge at the police station where it is necessary and appropriate.
 The long-standing assumption reflected in PACE is that the entitlement is triggered on arrival at the police station. It was mentioned earlier that in the case of street bail that entitlement would kick in when that street bail is answered and the person arrives at the 
 police station, which is the practical location for such advice to be delivered. There is no specific entitlement under PACE to legal advice following arrest but prior to arriving at a police station. I would resist the amendment on the grounds that a person will get all the rights to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred at the moment when they answer the bail by arriving at a police station.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister has been very helpful, because it was a probing amendment. It has made me so happy this afternoon that we have set a precedent for free votes in Committee on all matters.

Hilary Benn: Just the one.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister's response has been helpful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
 Given the helpful precedent set earlier, the amendment changes a single word, and the Minister will happily put it to the Committee for a free vote in the same way as previously. 
 The designated police station is one that can provide for, as the Minister has just said, the PACE provisions. If a person is required to attend an alternative police station, which has not provided those rights and capacity, it is appropriate that they should be transferred to a police station that is correctly provided for at the earliest opportunity. 
 Six hours is a long time to be held in a police station prior to transfer without recourse to the rights that would normally be provided at the time of being taken into custody. There is a defect in the Bill, and our suggestion is that the six hours be reduced to three. I appreciate that there may be operational difficulties in some parts of the country with three hours, and I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say on that. The principle must be that if someone is incorrectly required to attend a police station to surrender their bail, there is an onus on the police service to rectify that at the earliest opportunity rather than leaving a person to be held for a considerable length of time. Six hours is a considerable amount of time for someone to be held who has in the first instance been released on street bail.

Hilary Benn: PACE requires chief constables to designate certain police stations as those to be used for detaining arrested persons. They will be stations that are fully equipped and staffed for the detention process, as we acknowledged in the earlier debate. The general principle in PACE is that where an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station, they should be released or moved to a designated station after no more than six hours. That is what PACE currently provides for, and I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I can see no obvious reason for specifying a shorter period when the arrested person happens to be answering street bail. I cannot accept the amendment.

David Heath: I do not entirely agree. In the case of answering street bail, the police station concerned has been specified for that purpose—it is not simply the nearest or most convenient place to be taken following arrest by a constable who has other duties to perform. I should have thought that an arresting officer in those circumstances would show a little foresight in identifying the police station to which it might be appropriate to ask somebody to report.
 That brings me back to my previous point about what happens in an area where there are no police stations with custody suites in anything like proximity to the individual who has been arrested. Some thought—not in theoretical but in operational terms—must be given to how the provision will work. 
 I do not intend to pursue the matter now, but we may return to it, and I hope that the Minister will give it further consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: The Minister has been helpful in suggesting various forms of guidance. It would assist the Committee if he were able to provide even the earliest draft of the guidance that is to be given, because that will answer many of the questions that are worrying people outside the House and facilitate a smoother passage for the Bill when it reaches another place.

Vera Baird: I want to support the request for the criteria by which the officer's decision on whether to grant street bail will be taken. As those criteria will be the focus of the guidance, they should be made clear as soon as possible. This is an excellent proposal that is in everybody's interests. It will save police time and free people who might otherwise, at the very least, be massively inconvenienced.
 The basis of the decision on whether to keep somebody at liberty or to take them to the police station is very important. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of convolution in the thoughts that I am about to express. At present, once a police officer has arrested someone he must take him straight to the police station—there is no option. Under the Bill, he will have a right not to do that but to release him. If, on the other hand, he decides not to release him, because he has been granted that extra possibility, he will in fact be deciding to detain him. That is why the criteria by which he makes the decision are very important and should be made as clear as possible. 
 I shall try to exemplify what I mean. In a typical situation in which six football fans are arrested with bottles—or whatever might cause them to be arrested—as long as they remain calm and the bottles are removed, street bail might be appropriate for whatever they have done. I am at a loss to know what the criteria are, so that may not be a good example. If, however, five of them were given street bail and one was detained and taken to the police station, the officer would be exercising an arbitrary power of detention, however nominally, unless the 
 criteria on which that decision was taken were clearly laid out. It is therefore important that we should see the criteria as soon as we can, and discuss them if possible. 
 I was interested, although I was not quick enough to mention it at the time, in the power to remove property from a person who had been arrested and given street bail, which was referred to in an amendment that was recently withdrawn. Will the Minister clarify that matter? Notionally, it would be possible for someone to be arrested, some of their property to be confiscated by the police officer, and for them to be given street bail. If there was then an argument about whether that property should have been taken, the subject of the bail would not have any help in formulating his or her argument. I imagine that, in a situation in which property was to be removed, it would be obvious that the matter should be transferred to the police station and that street bail would not be given. However, I would like the police to be given clarification on that issue. Although that is a hypothetical situation, there remains the possibility that someone's property could be removed and that they would not have a legal adviser to hand to assist in recovering it. 
 The first notice of a person's bail need not specify when he must return to the police station and therefore at what point he might have his property returned. That property could be part of a tool kit that he needed. There is no finite time in these bail provisions, so interference with a person's property rights could occur.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the hon. and learned Lady's comments about the clause. We support the intention behind it, and the amendments were designed to ensure that it operates correctly. She has encapsulated some of our concerns.
 I will make a further and related point. Police officers must exercise judgment and take decisions about whether they should make arrests. The greater flexibility that the measure provides will be a powerful tool for the police to remove bureaucratic problems, and will probably enable them to deal with multiple offenders simultaneously. 
 However, the legislation should not be used as a substitute for judgment about whether to arrest. I am anxious that it should not be used as a blunderbuss, so that people become irritated that they are being placed under a sanction that may require their subsequent attendance at a police station, only then to be told that the matter will not be proceeded with, when it could have been resolved at an earlier stage. That is not desirable. Careful implementation will be needed, and appropriate guidelines must be issued to the police so that the legislation is used correctly. It must not be seen as a tool of administrative convenience that leads to people being inconvenienced by the police rather than being brought to justice. We must be careful to guard against that.

Graham Allen: May I briefly support my hon. and learned Friend? Amendment No. 75 also aimed to ensure that there would be objective criteria rather than reliance on subjective judgment.
 I leave the Minister with one thought as he sups his cocoa. These provisions aim to free up police time and reduce bureaucracy. Will he give some thought, as he puts on his nightcap tonight, to what we will do with that extra time? Can we quantify it and put it to use for the people whom we have been discussing—even those in Nottingham, North or anywhere else?

Hilary Benn: On that last point, all hon. Members will have a long list of uses to which they would like to put additional police officers' time in their constituencies, so I do not think that that will be a problem in practice. That is why all members of the Committee have welcomed the provision.
 My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made a point about property. Property can be seized under section 18, but as she will be aware, that would apply equally to someone who was subject to the provisions of street bail. 
 On the guidance, which clearly will be very important, I understand hon. Members' desire to see what it might look like, but one must ensure that it is written with regard to the process that Parliament goes through in deciding legislation, and not anticipate the final form. I was much taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the importance of getting the guidance right. I undertake to reflect on the nature of the guidance, but I do not want to submit to hon. Members' understandable wish to get something quickly to look at, and in so doing get the drafting wrong. If I did, people would tell me that I had not got it right, and we would end up in more difficulty. I would rather get the guidance right than draft it quickly. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Use of telephones for review of police detention

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in
clause 4, page 4, line 19, after 'out', insert 'with the authority of an officer with the rank of superintendent or above'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 30, in
clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out 'with' and insert 'between an officer of at least the rank of inspector and'.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment would make an important and sensible change. The intention behind the clause was clear to me when I first read it, but became much less clear when I started to consider what was already in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and when I read the explanatory notes. I may have completely misunderstood what is intended, in which case the Minister will put me right.
 The explanatory notes state that the provision 
''enables reviews of the continuing need for detention without charge . . . to be conducted over the telephone rather than in person at the police station'',
 as is currently the case. However, under section 40 of the 1984 Act, provision is made for review when a person has been arrested and not charged. Section 40(1)(b) states that a review must be carried out 
''in the case of a person who has been arrested but not charged, by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has not been directly involved in the investigation.''
 Section 40A(1) states: 
''This section applies, notwithstanding anything in section 40 above, where in the case of a person who has been arrested but not charged . . . it is not reasonably practicable for an officer of at least the rank of inspector to be present in the police station where that person is held to carry out any review of that person's detention that is required by subsection (1)(b) of that section''.
 The review is not a conferencing review. Section 40A(2) continues: 
''The review may be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has access to a means of communication by telephone to persons in the police station where the arrested person is held.''
 The Minister and I may be on common ground, but under the current rules it is possible to carry out reviews of detention of a person who has not been charged by telephone. To that extent, the explanatory notes are misleading or I have not understood something important about them. What is the consequence of the clause as it stands? 
 The new subsection seems to remove the need for the involvement of any police officer at inspector rank. It states: 
''A review under section 40(1)(b) may be carried out by means of a discussion, conducted by telephone, with one or more persons at the police station where the arrested person is held.''
 The new subsection does not specify who is supposed to carry out the necessary discussion. It is a wondrously nebulous concept that to carry out a review one has only to pick up a telephone and talk to some unspecified disembodied individual at the other end. What is the intention behind this provision? I detect that the need for the inspector's presence at the other end of the telephone has been removed.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman has ''Archbold'' there, so can he tell us who is required to carry out a review under the existing section 40(1)(b) of PACE?

Dominic Grieve: Yes. Under that section, when a person is arrested but not charged, the work must be done by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has not been directly involved in the investigation. The new section 40A appears to add the rider that if the inspector is not present at the police station, he can communicate over the telephone with those who are. It is perfectly comprehensible.
 It is noteworthy that new section 40A does not specify that the inspector should not be the one who is engaged in the investigation. That follows logically because he is not at the police station at the time. I understand the present rules, but not what the new rules are intended to achieve. As I told the Minister, something is missing from the explanatory notes, which I do not understand, so the purpose of the amendments is to probe the position. Until I can 
 understand what the Minister intends, it is difficult to know how best to amend the provisions. 
 I find it particularly difficult to understand why the need for a police officer of at least inspector rank should be removed from the process entirely. Is that the intention? At this stage, the best thing would be for me to sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say. I shall then exercise my right of reply if I am dissatisfied with his explanation.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak in support of the hon. Gentleman. I have been round this course before when we debated the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill a year ago. On another previous Bill, too, we discussed changing the rank of police officer—bringing it down a peg from inspector to superintendent—appropriate to authorise detention powers. We also debated the perfectly reasonable proposition of enabling some form of checking from afar in order to avoid making police officers run around different police stations.
 Two questions follow from the two amendments. The first is, what is the justification in practical terms for moving down a peg in seniority in these cases? Logically, the more it becomes possible to review from a distance, the less the need for a low-ranked officer. Understandably, if someone had to be in the station, it would have to be a superintendent, because an inspector could not get to the station every six or nine hours. However, if it were someone from afar, they would not need to be of a lower rank, because inspectors are available across a police force area very easily down a telephone. The proposal is for a twin-track change, to reduce the seniority of the officer and to allow them to conduct reviews from a distance. The Minister must justify both the parts to which I have referred. 
 Secondly, with regard to the amendment and the clause as a whole, it is not clear quite what the line of communication will be, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. I have a proposition to test that for the Minister. If a person and their legal representative accept from the beginning that the person is likely to be detained for a long time for various reasons, there will be no great concern periodically. Everyone will almost have signed up in advance to the fact that the six-hour or nine-hour check will happen. If there is consent, a video link from afar may be used—even, arguably, with a less senior officer. 
 Let us imagine, however, that the case is controversial. It could involve a young adult who had come under the remit of the Youth Justice Board, which has made clear its views about the sort of detention that we are discussing. That would involve wholly different considerations. One might want to insist that a more senior officer be in the cell at the police station to see what is going on, in order to satisfy everyone, not least the young adult, that their interests are being looked after. 
 I am anxious that we should know much more clearly the two justifications that we have probed with the amendments, and the linked justification for the 
 much less clear line of communication proposed by the clause.

Graham Allen: May I just say how much I welcome the clause? It will certainly be extremely valuable to the Nottinghamshire constabulary.
 As I understand it, inspectors will still be the officers responsible; I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The review after six, nine and 24 hours is an incredibly onerous burden on an independent inspector, who is not associated with the case. In my area, it involves officers who are trying to serve at the Bridewell in Nottingham, which I think is the busiest prison handling centre in Europe, regularly dashing from there to various locations throughout Nottinghamshire. 
 The measure will be well received. I do not know the whole history of PACE, but I imagine that when it was introduced, perhaps as a reaction to some of the things that the police service should not have been doing at the time, things may have gone a little too far in the other direction. This measure rebalances in a common-sense way the rights of the person who is held and the right of the police service to get on and do its job.

Hilary Benn: It may help if I draw attention to paragraphs 104 to 106 of the explanatory memorandum. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield read from the overview, which is at the beginning, but there is a more detailed explanation on page 22. In addition, the section 40A that he quoted is not yet in force. I am advised that it was inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
 Currently, as paragraph 104 states, telephone reviews are allowed only 
''where it is not reasonably practicable for the reviewing officer to be present at the police station.''
 The clause simply broadens that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is absolutely right. For the avoidance of doubt and to show that amendment No. 30 is unnecessary, I point out that all reviews of detention without charge, including telephone reviews, must be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. That is unchanged.

Dominic Grieve: I now understand the Minister more clearly, but if that is the case, why are we tinkering with the provision? If it has been amended by the 2001 Act, which provides the same power but in much clearer terms, why are we amending a piece of legislation that was passed only last year? The clarity does not appear. This wording is in a much shorter form than last year's legislation.

Hilary Benn: The answer is that it is in the interests of greater flexibility. A number of these changes to PACE are intended to help the police to operate their powers. We believe that telephone reviews are generally a satisfactory alternative to reviews conducted in person. The considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether to carry out a review by telephone will need to be covered in further guidance. However, we do not think that such reviews should be considered so exceptional as to require a
 senior officer's authority. That is why I would also ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 12. Indeed, if such authority were required the police would lose a lot of the flexibility that the clause is intended to provide.

Dominic Grieve: So the Minister is saying that the difference between the clause before us and section 40A brought in by the CJPA 2001 is that the CJPA 2001 had a reasonable practicability test and this clause does not even require that. It simply puts it on a routine footing.

Hilary Benn: That is exactly what the clause is about.

Simon Hughes: It still leaves the question that was not really answered by the Minister. We are trying to make law making sensible. Surely these matters are reviewed and changed once every five years, or once every three years; but to do it pretty well every year suggests that someone has not thought very far ahead.

Hilary Benn: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing wrong with reflecting upon experience. If it is found that a further change would give the police greater flexibility and support in doing their job, I do not see the problem. No one argues about providing this greater flexibility, subject to the safeguards that I have pointed out. I therefore resist the two amendments, but I hope that our useful discussion has clarified the matter raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly will not press these amendments to the vote. It is either take clause 4 or resist it in its totality. To that extent, amending it seems unnecessary, particularly in the light of the existence of section 40A, which could presumably be brought into effect at the stroke of a ministerial pen. It is on the statute book just waiting to be brought into force.
 I am not altogether happy with this development. I accept that measures taken to make police officers' life easier and enable them to focus on other things are important. I can see that there are good grounds for doing that if it frees up police officers to be operational. Nevertheless, the decision as to whether someone's detention without charge should be extended is important. It touches on their civil liberties and it should not be taken lightly. It is one thing to enable something to be brought into being by a police officer speaking over the telephone where it is not reasonably practicable for the inspector to be present, but if, as I fear, it simply becomes routine practice for the matter to be dealt with over the telephone by an unknown police officer who has little grasp of the issues in the case, or of the background, I am worried that the proposal will be a facilitator to people being detained for too long and without good reason. The next group of amendments, which relate to legal advice, may deal with that problem; I am not certain how it will marry with the present section 40A, which is not in force, but I shall return to that matter in a moment. 
 I am worried about the proposal because, on the whole, the person taking the decision should be able to form an independent judgment and it is vastly 
 preferable that it should be the inspector at the police station rather than on the telephone. I am happy for that facility to be provided when an inspector is not available, which section 40A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 sets out to do, but I am concerned about the bald terms in which it is being put into clause 4.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that there is a link between the officer's seniority and his ability to be present? Does he have a view on whether, if lower-rank officers regularly do the job, there should be some justification other than the simple argument that more people could do the job because there are more superintendents than there are inspectors?

Dominic Grieve: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We may be in danger of taking an unnecessary short cut that sends out a bad signal about the issue. In the next group of amendments I shall reflect on the Minister's response to another of my amendments, which may or may not be necessary, because it depends on what is currently in force. In the meantime, I am not persuaded that this measure is better than what is proposed in section 40A of the CJPA 2001, which appears to meet all the hon. Member for Nottingham, North's requirements without the mischief that might flow from it.

David Kidney: I shall make one last effort to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the proposal is more reasonable than that. Is not it a good argument for greater flexibility if it allows the inspector to spend more time on patrol with his or her officers because he is freed from the requirement to pace up and down police station corridors carrying out the reviews in person?

Dominic Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that that is what will happen. If, under the section 40A introduced by the CJPA 2001, the officer is out on patrol, it must follow that it is not reasonably practicable for him to be at the police station. Therefore, I do not see the problem. However, I do see that the careful wording of section 40A of the C JPA has been short-circuited and I am not persuaded that that is an advantage.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No.13, in
clause 4, page 4, line 21, at end insert 
 'and the person arrested shall have the right to the presence during the review of his legal representative and shall be advised of that right'.

James Cran: With this we may take amendment No.77, in
clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end add— 
 '(3) It shall be the duty of the police to carry out by discussion by telephone or using videoconferencing facilities, if this is practicable, on the request of the person under detention, or any solicitor representing him, or, in the case of a person under 18, the appropriate adult who is accompanying him.'.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment raises the next question: in the circumstances of the clause, will the person arrested have the right to the presence during a review of his legal representative, and will he be advised of that right? Clause 4 as drafted amends section 40A(1) and (2) of the 1984 Act and mentions
''use of telephone for review under s.40''.
 If I understand the Minister correctly, the provision that we want to amend is currently not in force. That is why I was confused: I naturally assumed that it was in force. Perhaps the ''Archbold'' in front of me is wrong, but in my copy, section 40A is the provision introduced by the CJPA. We must clarify the position before we can continue. I fail to understand how we can amend a section of PACE that is not in force. 
 Furthermore, section 40A, as intended, provides an opportunity to make representations, which is ideal, but it does not appear in the clause. One possibility—perhaps the answer to the problem—is that the Minister intends to marry clause 4 with parts of section 40A, including parts of section 40A(3).

Hilary Benn: Yes.

Dominic Grieve: This is just about the worst piece of drafting that I have ever encountered. We are debating a clause that is not yet in force and it is being partially amended by the Minister for implementation. It is a complete drafting nightmare and we must try to do better. It is most unsatisfactory. If he is about to reassure us on a right to representation, it removes part of my concern without removing my general anxiety about the clause.

Hilary Benn: First, for the avoidance of doubt, inspectors currently review and will continue to review under the new arrangements. Any suggestion of a downgrading is incorrect. I am advised that it is perfectly in order to amend legislation that already been passed but not yet brought into force. [Interruption.] It is perfectly in order.

Humfrey Malins: Ludicrous.

Hilary Benn: No, it is not ludicrous. As the hon. Gentleman read through section 40A(1), as passed by Parliament, but not yet in force, he realised that clause 4 would amend sections 40A(1) and 40A(2), leaving sections 40A(3), which is about legal representation, and 40A(4) intact. All the rights of representation and access that currently apply to reviews undertaken in person will in future apply to reviews undertaken by telephone. I hope that that satisfies the Committee on that point.

Simon Hughes: The Minister is right to say that it is possible, legal and legitimate to amend provisions that may not have been implemented. If the Home Secretary's wishes are to be followed—that we consolidate the criminal law and make the penal code easier to understand—this is not the best way to go about it. Seriously, attempting to keep up with the law is difficult. It is moderately difficult for those such as police officers, MPs and Ministers who are paid to do it, but for citizens who are not paid, but want to know their rights, it is impossible. The provisions do
 not serve the interest of making the law clearer for people to understand.
 The Home Office, the worst offender, should have some self-denying ordinances affirming that once something is on the statute book, it should be given a chance to be implemented. Eventually, it can be reviewed by the Home Affairs Committee or the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and updated if necessary. No wonder Bills are so long when we amend laws, some of which have not even been implemented. Last year, during consideration of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, we got rid of a proposal that the Government had not even introduced, having paved the way for it as their best suggestion only a couple of years before. That does not set a good example.

Graham Allen: I shall not press amendment No. 77 to the vote.

Dominic Grieve: It is an extraordinary state of affairs. We try to do our best to move business quickly through the Committee. Amending legislation passed only last year strikes me as profoundly unsatisfactory. However, I will withdraw the amendment, because I have now made up my mind about the proper approach to the proposals. If we can move rapidly to clause stand part, it may not have to be debated. I intend to vote against the clause.

James Cran: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I will also vote against the clause, for a medley of reasons: it amends something that has not been established; it raises issues that relate to another important civil liberty—the right of the state, or police officers in executing the law, to detain a person; as a protest against this way of making law; and the need for people to be assured that there is a proper review system.
 I completely accept the idea that we have a 24-hour detention power, although I shall resist any attempt to extend it, as we will debate shortly. I believe that that power should be reviewed regularly. I am not against the idea that there should be occasional reviews from a distance. I am modern enough to believe that it is possible in many circumstances to carry out such a review by video-conferencing, where it exists. I have specifically lobbied Home Office Ministers for the quickest and most available extension of video-recording facilities for all police stations. A year or so ago at a Northern Ireland debate, we learned that such facilities are more advanced there, and that all interviews are taped and can be recorded on video. The Minister said that it was the intention for that to happen also throughout England and Wales. 
 Before the end of the sitting, the Minister may be able to explain the safeguards that will be put in place, especially those that meet the Youth Justice Board's 
 concerns about young people and provide satisfactory protection of their interests. It has made representation, which colleagues have seen. 
 In conclusion, I want to correct something that I said earlier. The Conservative Whip on the Committee pointed out that I transposed inspectors and superintendents, for which I apologise. There are clearly more inspectors than superintendents, as they are a grade lower. However, the point is made: we need to know at what level it is appropriate for such checking to be done. The Youth Justice Board must be satisfied that the interests of those that it seeks to provide for are adequately safeguarded.

Mark Francois: As a Conservative, I am obliged to address clause 4 with some trepidation, as I understand from the history of the Labour party that that clause number has a certain resonance.
 The point must be made that what the Minister is doing is technically in order, but that does not necessarily mean that it is best practice, which follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I offer the Minister a maxim from the military world, in which I once served. Non-commissioned officers talk about order, counter-order and disorder. That is a wise maxim for him to remember, because if the Home Office constantly wants to be a serial legislator, and is so often going to change something that it enacted only recently by passing yet another Act of Parliament on top of it, it is in danger of creating great confusion, both in the police service and among the wider public. 
 I say this now merely to put down a marker, because I suspect that this will not be the first time that we come across the problem as we go through the Bill. Ministers should be careful as they ram more and more Home Office legislation down Parliament's throat. They should think out more carefully what they are legislating for in the first instance, to avoid the problem arising again.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a fair point about juveniles. The issues that arise in the circumstances that he described will need to be covered in guidance.
 I hear what is said about amending legislation that has only just been passed, but in all sincerity I do not agree. If, on reflection and following reviews and the garnering of experience, the view is reached that a change is sensible, the fact that the previous change was made only recently should not be a bar. There may be wider arguments about the burden of legislation that emanates from the Home Office, but today is not the day to have them. 
 In relation to the change that we are discussing, the Committee is divided among those who object to the change in principle, those who are sympathetic to it and those who combine to say that, notwithstanding their respective views, they do not like a change being made so quickly after the previous one. I think that it is a sensible change, which is why I hope that the Committee will vote for the clause. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 7.

NOES
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 19 December at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.